Grenville Clark III (2006)

1. In a letter of complaint dated May 19, 2003, Epaminondas Tingas asserted allegations of The Professional Conduct Cominittee fmds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:

makes Factual Findings and Rulings as follows: allegations in the Notice were deemed admitted. Therefore, the Professional Conduct Committee Mr. Clark failed to respond to the Notice of Charges in this matter. As a result, the factual

September 16, 2005, and Mr. Clark's prior disciplinary record. Law, the Transcript of the hearing dated September 7, 2005, the Hearing Panel Report dated Charges, the Notice of Hearing, Disciplinary Counsel's proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of record in this case, including the initial grievance filed by Epaminodas Tingas, the Notice of The parties waived oral argument. The Professional Conduct Committee thorougbly reviewed the

Stepanek. David N. Page abstained. Gretchen Rule Hamel did not attend the meeting. Cronheim, Reporter; Eleanor Wm. Dahar; James R. Martin; David N. Page; and Stephen B. Gray, Vice Chair; Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair; David N. Cole; Thomas P. Connair; Alan J. matter. The Committee members hearing the case included: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair; Toni M. On December 13,2005, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the above-referenced

Clark, Grenville advs. Epaminodas Tingas #03-062

Eleanor Wm. Dahar Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheim Thomas P. Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole Stephen B. Stepanek' Toni M. Gray, * Vice Chair 603-224-5828 • Fax 228-9511 David N. Page' Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 James R. Martin Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Gretchen Rule Hamel

Ms. Gelinas telephoned him again. On that date, Mr. Clark promised to forward the 7. Having received no paperwork or correspondence from Mr. Clark, on February 1 p. 2 2,2003,

would be forwarding copies to them. Clark stated that he had received the necessary paperwork from the IRS, and that he 6. On January 6, p. 2 2003, Ms. Gelinas was able to speak with Mr. Clark on the telephone. Mr.

time-period, but Mr. Clark did not return their calls. contact with Mr. Clark. They telephoned Mr. Clark on numerous occasions during that 5. Between August 8, p. 2 2002, and January 6,2003, Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas had no

left in trust. Mr. Clark had used a total of$19 p. 2 2.50 of their retainer for legal bills and they had $307.50 Clark's work and the status of their retaineLThe invoice indicated that, as of that date, Clark sent to the IRS. On August 8, 2002, they received an invoice sununarizing Mr. relative to a Power of Attorney. On July 18, 2002, they received a copy of a letter that Mr. 4. On July 11,2002, Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas received correspondence from Mr. Clark

solution." Mr. Clark assured Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas that this matter presented an"easy resolution with the IRS so that the lien could be lifted. At their meeting on July 9, p. 2 2002, taxes owed by Mr. Tingas. Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas retained Mr. Clark to negotiate a on the home which Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas jointly owned. The lien was for unpaid 3. By way of background, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") had recently placed a lien

Clark a $500.00 retainer. partner, Renee Gelinas, with whom Mr. Tingas resided. On that date, Mr. Tingas paid Mr. p. 2 2. On July 9, 2002, Mr. Tingas retained Mr. Clark to handle a tax matter for him and his

professional misconduct against Mr. Clark. p. 3 3

retained him. r resolved their lien issue with the IRS within approximately five weeks from the date they by using an accountant. Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas then hired an accountant who 14. ~v1r. Blli"TIS explained to l',fti. Th">}gas and l'vfs. Gelinas that they could resolve the lien issue

Mr. Clark forwarded a copy of Mr. Tingas' complete file to Mr. Burns. and hired David J. T. Burns to represent them. Per Mr. Burns' request, on July 24, 200 p. 3 3, 13. On Or about April 22, 2003, Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas terminated Mr. Clark's services

Mr. Clark did not return the call. office. Mr. Clark's secretary stated that he was not in the office but would return the call. 12. Having received nothing from Mr. Clark, on March 19,200 p. 3 3, Ms. Gelinas telephoned his

them, and that Mr. Clark would get the paperwork to them within a day or two. providing assistance to them. Mr. Clark assured her that he was still interested in helping paperwork"in a day or two." Ms. Gelinas asked if Mr. Clark was still interested in II. On March 11, 200 p. 3 3, a similar conversation ensured, and Mr. Clark promised to mail the

would mail the paperwork"today" (March 5). 10. On March 5, 200 p. 3 3, a similar conversation ensued, and Mr. Clark again stated that he

9. Having received no paperwork from Mr. Clark, on February 28, 200 p. 3 3, Ms. Gelinas

would mail it on that date (February 24). telephoned him again. Mr. Clark stated that he had not yet mailed the paperwork but 8. Having received no paperwork from Mr. Clark, on February 24, 200 p. 3 3, Ms. Gelinas

. paperwork to them within a week. p. 4 4

failed to communicate in accord with Rule 1. p. 4 4(a). 19. Further, by not forwarding the IRS paperwork to them in a prompt manner, Mr. Clark

they did. of their case, they could have sought and found alternative assistance much sooner than 18. Had Mr. Clark kept Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas reasonably informed regarding the status

process. both of them to believe that filling out this paperwork would be the next step in the legal necessary paperwork from the IRS, and that he would forward it to them. Mr. Clark led received on August 8, 2002, Mr. Clark repeatedly told them that he had received the 17. Rather than tell them that Mr. Clark had done nothing on their case since the invoice they

status oftheir matter. 22, 2003, Mr. Clark failed to keep Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas informed regarding the 16. From January 6, 2003, through the termination of Mr. Clark's services on or about April Rule l. p. 4 4(a) & (b): Communication

1.3(a). See also N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3(b). regard constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct Clark failed to act promptly and diligently on their behalf. Mr. Clark's failures in this resolving the IRS lien. By not resolving this matter with the IRS in a timely manner, Mr. 2003, Mr. Clark accomplished nothing for Mr. Tingas and Ms. Gelinas in terms of 15. From July 8, 2002, through the date of Mr. Clark's termination on or about April 22, Rule 1.3(a): Diligence

there is clear and convincing evidence that the following violations occurred: In light of the above-listed Findings of Fact, the Professional Conduct Committee concludes that

testimony at the hearing, demonstrated a continuing hesitation to accept responsibility in this follow through with his responsibilities to his clients. His attitude, as shpwn by his own Mr. Clark tried to characterize this case as a fee dispute rather than focusing on his failure to

Section 9.22. Two further aggravating circumstances were considered by the Committee. See, Standards,

year due to his inattention. not significantly harmed by his representation, resolution of this matter was delayed by nearly a a.'1d t.ljen by failing to inform his clients of the status of their case. W]1ile Mr. Clark's clients were Mr. Clark abdicated his responsibilities to his clients both by failing to deal with the tax issue,

appropriate sanction in this matter. for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991), the Committee believes that a Public Censure is the Having reviewed the record as well as the ABA Code for Professional Responsibility, Standards

suggested that a suspension was an appropriate sanction. In this case, Mr. Clark requested that a reprimand be issued while Disciplinary Counsel

his prior disciplinary record and his testimony at the September 7,200 p. 5 5, hearing. In detennining a sanction, the Committee reviewed Mr. Clark's conduct, its impact on his clients,

Rilles, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Rule 8.4(a). 21. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence of violation of the aforementioned Rule S.4(a): Misconduct

of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a) & 1.4(b). See also N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(c). 20. Mr. Clark's failures in these regards constitutes clear and convincing evidence violations p. 6 6

of this matter. the Professional Conduct Committee for costs associated with the investigation and prosecution legal education programs and submit certificates of attendance to this Committee, and reimburse violation of these Rules along with the requirement that he complete supplemental continuing Professional Conduct. The Committee therefore imposes a Public Censure upon Mr. Clark for l.4(a) and (b), Communication and Rule 8.4(a), Misconduct for Violating the Rules of The Professional Conduct Committee finds that Mr. Clark violated Rule 1. 3 (a), Diligence; Rule

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). N.H. 19,28 (2002) and is also in accord with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, of attorney discipline as described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, see, Feld's Case, 149 with the investigation and prosecution of this matter. This sanction is in accord with the purposes addition, Mr. Clark shall reimburse the Professional Conduct Committee for all costs associated count toward the continuing legal education credits required annually by the Supreme Court. In 30, 200 p. 6 6. This further continuing legal education requirement is to be in addition to those which on office management, and an additional two ethics credits, all programs to be completed by June further directs Mr. Clark to complete six hours of continuing legal education programs focused concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a public censure. The Committee Having made the aforementioned Findings and Rulings, the Professional Conduct Committee

censure in 1992. See, Clark's Case, 13 p. 6 6 N.H. 49 p. 7 7 (1992). than ten years old, he received three prior reprimands in 1991, 1993 and 1994 as well as a public matter. Further, Mr. Clark has a prior disciplinary record. While these prior sanctions are more 7

File Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Grenville Clark, III, Esquire Distribution:

January {C,2006

appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See also, Supreme Court Rule 3 p. 7 7(3)(c). Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(A) (III) (d)(2)(D)(4)(A), Grenville Clark, III, has the right to